From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 11 13:03:32 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16FA37B401 for ; Sun, 11 May 2003 13:03:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41D1343F93 for ; Sun, 11 May 2003 13:03:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com) Received: from be-well.ilk.org (lowellg.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.147.188.198]) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with ESMTP id <2003051120033005200a5f8ee>; Sun, 11 May 2003 20:03:30 +0000 Received: from be-well.ilk.org (lowellg.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.147.188.198] (may be forged)) by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.9/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h4BK3UuD005098; Sun, 11 May 2003 16:03:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com) Received: (from lowell@localhost) by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.9/8.12.6/Submit) id h4BK3TBA005095; Sun, 11 May 2003 16:03:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: be-well.ilk.org: lowell set sender to freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org using -f Sender: lowell@be-well.no-ip.com To: Randy Rowe References: <3EBD4518.5020407@rerowe.com> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 11 May 2003 16:03:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <3EBD4518.5020407@rerowe.com> Message-ID: <44he812qum.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Lines: 9 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 4.8 and 5.0 strangeness X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 20:03:32 -0000 Randy Rowe writes: > I have a ComPaq Proliant 2500 that has the following strangeness and I > was curious if anyone had a hint as to how to fix either. > I guess I'm a little more interested in getting the drives recognized > under 5.0 than I am in getting the printer to work under 4.8 :-) TIA Have you tried a more recent 5.x? It is, after all, bleeding-edge code.